JUDGMENT Mr. Mahesh Grover, J.:- This revision petition is directed against the order dated 3.10.2009. 2. The petitioner is judgment-debtor against whom a decree had been passed in a suit for recovery initiated by the respondent. He was required to pay a sum of Rs.2 lacs pursuant to the decree. He challenged the same in appeal, while the respondent, who was the decree-holder filed an execution petition. During this period it is alleged that a compromise was effected between the parties and pursuant thereto a statement was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner before the Appellate Court where the appeal was pending, and an order was passed to the following effect :- “Present: Counsel for the parties. “Parties effected compromise. As per compromise appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. In view of the statement of Sh.A.K.Jindal, counsel for the appellant, court fee deposited is ordered to be refunded to the appellant. File be consigned to record room. Pronounced in open court. January 10, 2004 Sd/- Presiding Officer, Lok Adalat at Barnala.” 3. This statement was made and the appeal withdrawn in the presence of learned counsel for the respondent who did not raise any objection thereto. However, the execution proceedings subsisted. The petitioner filed objections in the execution stating that the matter has been settled and on the strength of such compromise he has withdrawn the appeal. But the respondent with an ulterior motive had got a notice issued under Order 21 Rule 66 CPC despite the satisfaction of the decree. Upon such objections, which were denied by the respondent, the following issues were framed:- i) Whether DH has received payment and thereafter executed receipt dt. 12.10.03? OPO ii) Relief. 4. The petitioner in support of his contention that a compromise had been arrived at produced and proved the same on record as Ex.O-1. Sadhu Singh, one of the attesting witnesses, was examined as OW-1, the scribe Ajaib Singh was examined as OW-2 and the petitioner examined himself as OW3. Dr.Inderjit Singh, Handwriting and Finger-Print Expert was examined as OW-4, who gave his report Ex.O-2 comparing the signatures of the respondent as appearing on the said document and according to his report the signatures tallied with each other. The respondent likewise examined another expert who testified in his favour. Dr.Inderjit Singh, Handwriting and Finger-Print Expert was examined as OW-4, who gave his report Ex.O-2 comparing the signatures of the respondent as appearing on the said document and according to his report the signatures tallied with each other. The respondent likewise examined another expert who testified in his favour. The executing Court thereafter evaluated the material before it and concluded that the settlement was valid, and accepted the objections while dismissing the case and an appeal followed which was accepted by the Addl.District Judge, Barnala on 3.10.2009 which has resulted in the filing of the instant revision petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated his objections while learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as Padma Ben Banushali & Anr. v. Yogendra Rathore & Ors. 2007(3) Apex Court Judgments 286 (S.C.) to say that uncertified payment of money or adjustment which is not recorded under Order 21 Rule 2 CPC cannot be recognised by the executing Court. Reliance was also placed on Ramesh Kumar v. Vijay Kumar & Ors. 2004(3) Civil Court Cases 644 (P&H). 6. I have considered the matter in its entirety but am unable to accept the plea which has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondent. A categoric statement was made by the counsel for the petitioner before the Appellate Court that the parties have effected a compromise and according to the compromise the appeal be dismissed as withdrawn. Learned counsel for the respondent was present at that point of time. It is admitted by the respondent itself in his cross-examination recorded during the course of hearing objections before the executing Court. He did not at that point of time objected to the factum of compromise being referred to in the statement. There is indeed no doubt that the appellant could have withdrawn the appeal if he was desirous to do so but if the factum of compromise was mentioned as reason for withdrawal, which is not objected to, then it leads to a strong inference that there was no denial to the compromise or settlement. The petitioner has sufficiently established the authenticity of Ex.O-1 before the executing Court. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it was reasonable for the executing Court to conclude in favour of a settlement and consequent satisfaction of the decree. The petitioner has sufficiently established the authenticity of Ex.O-1 before the executing Court. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it was reasonable for the executing Court to conclude in favour of a settlement and consequent satisfaction of the decree. There is indeed no doubt about the proposition which emerges from the observation of the Supreme court in Padma Ben Banushali’s case (supra), but the case in hand can be distinguished from the facts of that case because of the reasons which have been given above. The statement which has been made before the Appellate Court without any objection from the respondent can be termed to be a sufficient compliance of Order 21 Rule 2-A CPC which is extracted hereunder :- “2.Payment out of Court to decree-holder. (1).... (2)............ (2-A) No payment or adjustment shall be recorded at the instance of the judgment-debtor unless - (a) the payment is made in the manner provided in Rule 1; or (b) the payment or adjustment is proved by documentary evidence; or (c) the payment or adjustment is admitted by, or on behalf or, the decree-holder in his reply to the notice given under sub-rule (2) of Rule 1, or before the Court.” In view of the above, the revision petition is accepted and the impugned order is set aside. ----------